Educational

10.1177/0013164405282461
Ang, Huan / and
Academic
Psychological
Expectations
Measurement
Stress In ventory

Educational and
Psychological Measurement
Volume 66 Number 3
June 2006 522-539

Academic Expectations Stress © 2006 Sage Publications

10.1177/0013164405282461
http://epm.sagepub.com
Inventory hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com

Development, Factor Analysis,

Reliability, and Validity
Rebecca P. Ang
Vivien S. Huan
Nanyang Technological University

This article describes the development and initial validation of obtained scores from the
Academic Expectations Stress Inventory (AESI), which measures expectations as a
source of academic stress in middle and high school Asian students. In the first study,
exploratory factor analysis results from 721 adolescents suggested a nine-item scale with
two factors—Expectations of Parents/Teachers (five items) and Expectations of Self
(four items). The data also revealed initial evidence of the reliability of AESI’s scores.
Initial estimates of convergent validity for AESI’s scores were also reported. In the sec-
ond study, data from 387 adolescents were subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis
that provided support for the factor structure derived from the first study. In the third
study, data from 144 adolescents yielded evidence of AESI scores’ test-retest reliability.
Additional evidence of AESI’s internal consistency estimates as well as convergent and
discriminant validity for AESI’s scores were also provided.

Keywords: exploratory factor analysis; confirmatory factor analysis; academic stress;

Asian

A sian American students’ consistently high achievement patterns have been well
documented, and their educational performance often exceeds that of White,
African American, and Hispanic students (Sue & Okazaki, 1990). Steinberg, Dorn-
busch, and Brown (1992) found that in comparison to students from other ethnic
groups, Asian American students devoted relatively more time to their studies and
were more likely to report that their parents have high expectations and standards for
their school performance. Specifically, Asian American students were found to spend
twice as much time each week on homework than students of other ethnic groups and
reported that their parents would be upset if they came home with anything less than an

Authors’ Note: The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful and constructive suggestions made by the
reviewers and the associate editor, Robin K. Henson. Address correspondence to Rebecca P. Ang, Division
of Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang
Avenue, Singapore 639798; e-mail: [email protected].

522

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

 Ang, Huan / Academic Expectations Stress Inventory 523

A– (Steinberg et al., 1992). African American and Hispanic students, in contrast, per-
formed less well in school, were found to devote less time to their studies, and were
more likely to report that their parents had relatively lower expectations and standards
for their school performance (Steinberg et al., 1992). Through structured interviews
with Asian American students, Mordkowitz and Ginsburg (1987) found Asian fami-
lies to strongly emphasize the need to succeed educationally, and these findings were
similar to Steinberg et al.’s. Specifically, Asian families considered schooling of pri-
mary importance and placed high demands and expectations for educational achieve-
ment (Mordkowitz & Ginsburg, 1987).
This pressure to succeed and to do well academically is even more acutely felt in
Asian societies worldwide (e.g., Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore). For example,
Korean 12th graders reported more than twice the time their American counterparts
reported in completing schoolwork (Lee & Larson, 2000). Conversely, American 12th
graders spent more than twice as much time in socializing and leisure activities com-
pared to Korean 12th graders (Lee & Larson, 2000). In Korea, graduating from a high-
ranking university is a passport to a good job, high wages, and high social status
(Chung, Kim, Lee, Kwon, & Lee, 1993); hence, Korean students spend large amounts
of time studying after school and on weekends, and leisure was comparatively rare.
Hence, it was not surprising that Juon, Nam, and Ensminger (1994) found academic
stress to be one of the predictors of suicidal behaviors among Korean adolescents.
Likewise, adolescents in Singapore face a highly stressful educational environ-
ment. In a study investigating key issues facing Singapore youth, 220 high school stu-
dents in Singapore ranked “being pressured to keep up with schoolwork” as the top
problem or concern they had (Isralowitz & Ong, 1990). In a recent national youth sur-
vey conducted in Singapore, K. C. Ho and Yip (2003) found that a majority of young
people ranked education as the most stressful aspect of their lives. Furthermore, when
asked to rank the importance and satisfaction level of seven different aspects of school
life, youths overwhelmingly ranked examination grades as the most important aspect
of school life but reported being the least satisfied with it. This suggests that whereas
youths considered examination grades to be the most important aspect of school life,
they felt that they could not attain standards that were perceived to be satisfactory.
Taken together, these findings from studies conducted with Asian and Asian Amer-
ican students suggest that whereas striving for academic excellence may result in cer-
tain positive outcomes for these adolescents, it is equally important to recognize that
negative consequences such as excessive stress and mental health problems are also
clearly evident (Shek, 1995). Large-scale national youth surveys and interviews with
youth conducted in Singapore indicated that pressure surrounding education and
schoolwork reflected the stress associated with succeeding in school and getting a job
that pays well and has high status (K. C. Ho & Yip, 2003; Isralowitz & Ong, 1990). In a
comparative study of subjective well-being, Korean adolescents were found to report
more negative emotions regarding education than adolescents from nearly all other
Western nations (Diener, Suh, Smith, & Shao, 1995). Lee and Larson (2000) investi-
gated the relationship between academic stress and depression; they employed a con-

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

524 Educational and Psychological Measurement

sistent clinical criterion and found 36% of Korean students to be clinically depressed
in the sample, compared to 16% of American students. Likewise, Sastry and Ross
(1998) found Asians in Asia to have higher levels of anxiety and depression than indi-
viduals from non-Asian countries. In the same vein, several other research studies
have also documented higher levels of distress in Asian American students compared
with White American students (Abe & Zane, 1990). Collectively, empirical findings
point to the need to succeed academically as a major source of stress and may
contribute to mental health problems especially for Asian and Asian American
students.
Researchers have sought to provide an explanation for the twin findings of the edu-
cational achievements of and the high level of academic stress experienced by the
Asian and Asian American students. The most common cultural view reviewed in the
literature is that Asian family values and socialization practices emphasize the need to
succeed educationally (Sue & Okazaki, 1990). In accordance with Confucian ideals,
Chinese parents place great emphasis on filial piety, education, and proper behavior
(D. Y. F. Ho, 1981; Shek & Chan, 1999). Filial piety is the primary guiding principle of
socialization practices (D. Y. F. Ho, 1981). Respect for parents and obedience are
highly valued, and filial piety may also be generalized to authority relationships
beyond the family (D. Y. F. Ho, 1996). In Asian cultures, shame and its attendant loss
of face are frequently used as socialization tools to reinforce familial and cultural obli-
gations, societal expectations, and proper behavior (Yeh & Huang, 1996). Loss of face
is a very powerful social control mechanism for Asians because when one loses face,
one feels tremendous shame, which is shared by the entire family, as well as feelings of
inferiority for not attaining the goals and ideals defined by the family (D. Y. F. Ho,
1976; Toupin, 1980). Not meeting one’s own expectations and the expectations of sig-
nificant others is a serious matter that could potentially result in loss of face and loss of
confidence and support from one’s family and even the community (Yeh & Huang,
1996). Therefore, children are socialized to be hypersensitive to the judgment of oth-
ers, especially significant others such as parents or teachers. Academic achievement is
extremely important because it is perceived as one of the few avenues for upward
mobility and expanded options; thus, the significance that individuals and families
attribute to academic success is intensified (Gloria & Ho, 2003; D. Y. F. Ho, 1994; Sue
& Okazaki, 1990). In a study investigating the perceptions of an ideal child, approxi-
mately 60% of Hong Kong Chinese parents listed family-related (e.g., fulfillment of
family responsibilities) and academic-related attributes (e.g., fulfillment of responsi-
bility in studying) as characteristics of the ideal child (Shek & Chan, 1999). These
findings are consistent with the observation that filial piety, family orientation, and
education are strongly emphasized in the Asian culture (Yang, 1981).
In addition, Asian students’ concepts of the self are more collective than those of
Caucasian students (Higgins & King, 1981). Furthermore, Asians tend to be relatively
high self-monitors, whereas Caucasians tend to be relatively low self-monitors
(Triandis, 1989). Therefore, because Asians respond strongly to the judgments and
demands of the familial and social environment, external influences feature very

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

 Ang, Huan / Academic Expectations Stress Inventory 525

strongly in their perceptions, feelings, and behavior (Gloria & Ho, 2003; Yeh &
Huang, 1996). Integrating these findings in the context of academic stress, it appears
that in addition to Asian students putting pressure on themselves to excel academi-
cally, they also strive hard to fulfill familial obligations and the academic expectations
of significant others such as parents and teachers.
In contrast, for studies using non-Asian samples (e.g., Caucasian students),
although academic stress is sometimes linked to test taking, exams, time pressure, and
future plans, expectations of parents as a factor in contributing to academic stress is
almost nonexistent (e.g., Akgun & Ciarrochi, 2003; Schafer, 1996). Michie, Glachan,
and Bray (2001) found that students who believed that peers judged them to be aca-
demically less able experienced higher levels of academic stress. In addition, students
who wanted to return to school to pursue professional advancement also put more
pressure on themselves to perform better, and they, too, experienced a higher level of
academic stress (Michie et al., 2001). Higher academic stress among American and
Australian students was also associated with lower course grades and taunting and
teasing from peers about being a “nerd” (Struthers, Perry, & Menec, 2000; Wenz-
Gross, Untch, & Widaman, 1997). Students’ own academic expectations and perfor-
mance have also been found to be associated with higher levels of academic stress
(Abouserie, 1994; Heins, Fahey, & Leiden, 1984). Collectively, these findings indi-
cate that in a Western context, academic stress experienced by non-Asian students
appear to encompass similar aspects of school-related stressors as those experienced
by Asian students with the exception of one major difference, which is the absence of
stress arising from the need to excel academically to fulfill parental expectations and
to avoid the loss of face.
At present, no instruments exist to adequately measure expectations as a source of
academic stress in middle and high school Asian students. The Academic Stress Ques-
tionnaire (ASQ; Abouserie, 1994), Academic Stress Scale (ASS; Kohn & Frazer,
1986), and Student Stress Inventory (SSI; Zeidner, 1992) all obtain information about
general academic stress among college or undergraduate students. Only two scales
reviewed were designed for use with middle and high school students, and they are
School Stressors Inventory for Adolescents (SSIA; Fanshawe & Burnett, 1991) and
High School Stressors Scale (HSSS; Burnett & Fanshawe, 1997), respectively. All the
scales listed were developed in the West, and these scales were not designed to tap into
expectations of self, parents, and teachers, which were reviewed to be powerful,
meaningful, and salient in the lives of Asian students. For example, only two of the
five academic stress inventories listed had one or two items that specifically measured
expectations of parents, which was reviewed to be one of the major facets of academic
stress experienced by Asian students.
Another issue concerns the use of appropriate statistical procedures for the devel-
opment and validation of questionnaires. With the exception of the HSSS (Burnett &
Fanshawe, 1997), all other scales were constructed with sole reliance on the use of
exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The EFA approach has been criticized for having
statistics rather than theory determine the structure of scale scores and for not ade-

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

526 Educational and Psychological Measurement

quately assessing error (Gorsuch, 1983; Henson, Capraro, & Capraro, 2004; Thomp-
son & Daniel, 1996). Dickey (1996) argued that it is therefore important that EFA
itself cannot be used as a basis for a final determination regarding an underlying con-
struct, because the analysis is designed to maximize the amount of variance within the
current variable set, and subsequent analyses with other data sets may not reproduce
the same factor structures. Given these various constraints and limitations of existing
instruments reviewed, it was therefore necessary to develop an empirically validated
academic stress inventory specifically measuring expectations, for use with middle
and high school Asian students.

Study 1: EFA and Initial Validation

Method

Purpose
The purpose of Study 1 was threefold: (a) to generate an initial pool of items for a
scale to measure the construct of academic stress among adolescents arising from self-
expectations, parent-expectations, and teacher-expectations; (b) to conduct an EFA to
assess the factor structure of the scale items; and (c) to investigate the initial estimates
of internal consistency and construct validity of the AESI scores.

Scale Construction
The construct being measured was defined as expectations (from self, parents, or
teachers) as a source of academic stress experienced by middle and high school ado-
lescents. We developed the construct definition based on a review of the relevant liter-
ature in the area of academic stress as it relates to adolescents’ perception of self-
expectations and other-expectations. An initial pool of 15 items was generated to tap
into the facets of stress arising from academic expectations among adolescent stu-
dents. Items that were agreed upon by two independent reviewers experienced in the
scale development process as congruent with the content domain were retained. Two
items were dropped because of redundancy, and 3 items were reworded for clarifica-
tion, resulting in a 13-item inventory. Two items were reverse-scored to minimize
potential response bias. The response format for the AESI is a Likert-type scale rang-
ing from 1 (never true) to 5 (almost always true). Items were scored such that higher
scores indicated greater perceived academic stress from these expectations.

Participants
A sample of 721 adolescents (388 males and 329 females, 4 individuals did not pro-
vide gender information) from a secondary school in Singapore participated in the
study. The sample consisted of students from Grades 7 through 10, and participants’
ages ranged from 12 to 18 years (M = 14.44, SD = 1.01). Self-reported ethnic identifi-

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

 Ang, Huan / Academic Expectations Stress Inventory 527

cation for the sample was as follows: Of the participants, 77.3% were Chinese, 3.1%
were Indian, 16% were Malay, 2.6% endorsed Other (all other ethnic groups not
listed), and 1% did not provide information on ethnicity.

Measures

The preliminary AESI. The initial version of AESI consisted of 13 items that mea-
sured academic stress among adolescent students arising from self-expectations, parent-
expectations, and teacher-expectations. Higher scores indicated higher perceived aca-
demic stress.

Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale–Brief Version (FNE-Brief). The FNE-Brief

(Leary, 1983a) is a 12-item version of the original 30-item FNE scale (Watson &
Friend, 1969) that measured the degree to which people experienced anxiety or appre-
hension at the prospect of being evaluated negatively. The scale used a Likert-type
response format with choices ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5
(extremely characteristic of me), and scores were summed with higher scores reflect-
ing greater levels of anxiety or fear. The Cronbach’s alpha for the sample was .77.
Scores from FNE-Brief have been shown to be highly correlated with scores from the
original FNE scale (Leary, 1983a). In addition, scores from both the FNE-Brief and
FNE scales have shown expected relationships with scores from other established
scales measuring a similar construct (Durm & Glaze, 2001; Leary, 1983b).

Children’s Depression Inventory–Short Form (CDI-Short). The CDI-Short (Kovacs,

1992) is the 10-item brief version of the 27-item inventory that measured a variety of
self-reported depressive symptoms in children and adolescents. Each CDI item con-
sisted of three choices, keyed 0 (absence of symptom), 1 (mild symptom), or 2 (definite
symptom), with higher scores indicating more severe self-reported depressive symp-
toms. The Cronbach’s alpha for the sample was .83. Having been used in many clinical
and research studies, the validity of CDI scores have been well established (e.g.,
Barreto & McManus, 1997; Stark & Laurent, 2001). In addition, scores from CDI-
Short are highly correlated with scores from the original 27-item CDI.

Consent and Procedure

In Singapore, permission for conducting research and data collection is typically
granted by the school principal. Approval was sought and obtained for the researchers
to conduct the research investigation at the school prior to data collection. The purpose
of the study was explained to the students, and consent to participate in the study was
obtained from all students involved. Participation was strictly voluntary, and students’
responses were kept confidential. Students were also informed that they could refuse
or discontinue participation at any time. All questionnaires were administered in Eng-
lish. No translation is needed as English is the medium of instruction for all schools in
Singapore.

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

528 Educational and Psychological Measurement

Results

EFA
Prior to conducting the EFA, we examined two indicators to determine whether the
sample was appropriate for such an analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of
sampling adequacy index was .89, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant,
χ2(78, N = 721) = 4,175.73, p < .0001, indicating that the sample and correlation
matrix were appropriate for such an analysis. Principal components analysis with an
oblique rotation was performed on the scores of the 13-item AESI. An oblique rota-
tion was used because we expected the factors to be correlated. We based the decision
about number of factors to retain on a combination of methods (e.g., parallel analysis,
eigenvalue > 1.0, scree plots) as well as conceptual clarity, interpretability and theoret-
ical salience of the rotated factors, and simple structure. In this study, the various
methods used to determine factor retention indicated that two factors be retained for
the final solution. Our goal was to have the smallest number of possible factors and for
each item to have a substantial pattern coefficient on only one latent factor. Items
should preferably weight greater than .4 on the relevant factor and less than .4 on all
other factors (Stevens, 1996). Of the 13 items, 4 (inclusive of the 2 reverse-scored
items) were dropped from subsequent analyses because they either had extremely low
item-total correlations or they had high coefficients on more than one factor. These
procedures resulted in a 9-item instrument that accounted for 65.92% of the variance
in AESI scores.
As expected, the rotated factors had scores that were correlated (r = .65). The factor
pattern and factor structure coefficients are presented in Table 1, along with com-
munalities (h2) and means and standard deviations of the measured variables. All nine
items had communalities of at least .50. The first factor consisted of five items, was
labeled Expectations of Parents/Teachers, and accounted for 53.74% of the variance.
The first factor contained items that reflect the sense of stress, self-blame, and disap-
pointment at not having lived up to the expectations of parents and teachers. The sec-
ond factor consisted of four items, was labeled Expectations of Self, and accounted for
12.18% of the variance. The second factor contained items that reflect a sense of
stress, anxiety, and inadequacy at not having lived up to one’s own expectations. The
percentage of variance explained refers to variance accounted for postrotation. When-
ever factors are correlated, structure coefficients (correlations of the measured vari-
ables with the extracted factors) are also important aids to interpretation (Thompson,
1997; Thompson & Borrello, 1985). Large structure coefficients were obtained for all
measured variables on both factors, and this is consistent with the high correlation
between the scores of the rotated components.

Internal Consistency
We computed estimates of internal consistency using Cronbach’s coefficient
alphas. Scores obtained from the nine-item AESI had a Cronbach’s alpha of .89. The
internal consistency estimates for the two factors were as follows: Expectations of

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

 Ang, Huan / Academic Expectations Stress Inventory 529

Table 1
Rotated Factor Pattern and Structure Matrices for the AESI, Communalities,
Means, and Standard Deviations
Factor 1 Factor 2
2
Item P S P S h M SD

Factor 1: Expectations of Parents/Teachers

1. I blame myself when I cannot live up to
my parents’ expectations of me. .75 .80 .10 .52 65.2 2.72 1.30
2. I feel I have disappointed my teacher
when I do badly in school. .90 .81 –.15 .35 67.6 2.76 1.27
3. I feel I have disappointed my parents
when I do poorly in school. .83 .83 –.01 .45 68.6 3.31 1.29
4. I feel stressed when I know my parents
are disappointed in my exam grades. .67 .75 .13 .51 56.9 2.97 1.31
5. I feel lousy when I cannot live up to
my teacher’s expectations. .70 .75 .09 .48 56.9 2.54 1.23
Factor 2: Expectations of Self
6. I feel stressed when I do not live up to
my own standards. –.13 .41 .97 .90 82.1 3.22 1.25
7. When I fail to live up to my own
expectations, I feel I am not good enough. .01 .49 .87 .87 75.5 3.25 1.22
8. I usually cannot sleep and worry when
I cannot meet the goals I set for myself. .22 .56 .60 .72 55.7 2.66 1.28
9. When I do not do as well as I could have
in an examination or test, I feel stressed. .32 .64 .58 .76 64.7 3.11 1.28

Note: P = Pattern coefficients; S = Structure coefficients; AESI = Academic Expectations Stress Inventory;
h2 = communalities of the measured variables. Pattern coefficients with values of .40 or greater are in bold.

Parents/Teachers (five items; α = .85) and Expectations of Self (four items; α = .84).
These Cronbach’s alpha estimates appear adequate for general research purposes
(Henson, 2001; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Convergent Validity
We used FNE-Brief (Leary, 1983a) and CDI-Short (Kovacs, 1992) to provide
estimates of convergent validity for the AESI scores. We expected that the scores on
the nine-item AESI, Factor 1—Expectations of Parents/Teachers and Factor 2—
Expectations of Self, would be positively correlated with scores from FNE-Brief and
CDI-Short. We expected the construct of academic stress to be more closely aligned
with anxiety than with depression; hence, we expected larger correlations between
AESI scores and FNE-Brief scores than between AESI scores and CDI-Short scores.
As predicted, scores obtained from AESI total (r = .31), Expectations of Parents/
Teachers (r = .25), and Expectations of Self (r = .32) were positively correlated with
scores from FNE-Brief. Likewise, obtained scores from AESI total (r = .27), Expec-
tations of Parents/Teachers (r = .21), and Expectations of Self (r = .30) were also posi-
tively correlated with obtained scores from CDI-Short as expected (see Table 2).

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

530 Educational and Psychological Measurement

Table 2
Correlations Between Scores From AESI, FNE-Brief, and CDI-Short Scales
Scale 1 2 3 4 5

1. AESI .—
2. AESI F1 .93 .—
3. AESI F2 .89 .65 .—
4. FNE-Brief .31 .25 .32 .—
5. CDI-Short .27 .21 .30 .26 .—

Note: AESI = Academic Expectations Stress Inventory; AESI F1 = Factor 1—Expectations of Parents/
Teachers; AESI F2 = Factor 2—Expectations of Self; FNE-Brief = Fear of Negative Evaluation–Brief Ver-
sion; CDI-Short = Children’s Depression Inventory–Short Form.

Results indicated that participants who perceived greater academic stress from expec-
tations of self and others also experienced greater fear of being evaluated negatively
and had higher self-reported symptoms of depression. Generally, the magnitude of the
correlations was moderate and corresponded to effect sizes in the medium range
(Cohen, 1988).

Study 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Method

Purpose
The purpose of Study 2 was to test the factor structure of the scores obtained from
the nine-item AESI that was determined in Study 1, with an independent sample,
through the use of confirmatory factor analysis.

Participants
Participants were 387 students (208 males and 179 females) from a secondary
school in Singapore. The sample consisted of students from Grades 8 and 9 with ages
ranging from 13 to 17 years (M = 14.14, SD = 0.72). Self-reported ethnic identification
for the sample was as follows: Of the participants, 72.6% were Chinese, 2.1% were
Indian, 22% were Malay, and 3.3% endorsed Other (all other ethnic groups not listed).

Measures

AESI. The nine-item AESI was used. Based on Study 1, the inventory has two sub-
scales, Expectations of Parents/Teachers (five items) and Expectations of Self (four
items).

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

 Ang, Huan / Academic Expectations Stress Inventory 531

Consent and Procedure

The procedures used for obtaining consent, participation, and questionnaire
administration were similar to those of Study 1.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We used a confirmatory factor analysis to test the stability of scores from the two-
factor, nine-item AESI using EQS Version 6.1 (Bentler, 2004). The Cronbach’s alpha
estimates for the AESI scores (Total, Expectations of Parents/Teachers, Expectations
of Self) in Study 2 were .87, .84, and .83, respectively. The hypothesized two-factor
model identified in Study 1 consisted of two first-order latent variables representing
two subscales, with each variable having five (Expectations of Parents/Teachers) and
four (Expectations of Self) indicators. We analyzed comparisons between this hypoth-
esized two-factor model and a competing one-factor model with all nine items as indi-
cators of the variable. The parameters were estimated using maximum likelihood. An
examination of the multivariate chi-square coefficients from the Lagrange Multiplier
Test revealed three correlated measurement errors (between Items 2 and 3, 2 and 5,
and 6 and 7; see Table 1 for the items). In general, respecification of correlated errors
for the purposes of achieving a better fitting model is not an acceptable practice unless
the respecification makes both substantive as well as statistical sense (Byrne, 1994).
From both these perspectives, it appears reasonable that the three error covariances
(E2, E3; E2, E5; E6, E7) should be respecified as freely estimated parameters. Statisti-
cally, they yielded large chi-square values; substantively, they represented correlated
errors among subscale items of the same measuring instrument, a relatively common
finding among attitude and self-report scales in general (e.g., Byrne, 1991, 1993;
Newcomb, Huba, & Bentler, 1986; Tanaka & Huba, 1984). In addition, correlation of
the error terms could be justified on the basis of the high correlation between the two
factors. Thus, both the hypothesized two-factor model and the competing one-factor
model were subsequently respecified with these three parameters freely estimated.
Multiple indices provided a comprehensive evaluation of model fit (Hu & Bentler,
1995, 1999). We examined the traditional chi-square fit index. However, given the
known dependency of the chi-square statistic on sample size (Bentler & Bonett, 1980;
Byrne, 1994), and that the chi-square values are overly stringent in evaluating exact fit
(Quintana & Maxwell, 1999), we also examined other fit indices. In this study, the fol-
lowing goodness-of-fit measures were also used: (a) comparative fit index (CFI), (b)
Bentler-Bonett normed fit index (NFI), (c) Bentler-Bonett nonnormed fit index (NNFI;
also known as Tucker-Lewis Index), (d) incremental fit index (IFI), (e) goodness-of-
fit index (GFI), and (f) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Although
a value of .90 for CFI, NFI, NNFI, IFI, and GFI has served as a rule-of-thumb lower
limit cutoff of acceptable fit, a value of .93 is expected of models considered to be well
fitting (Byrne, 1994). RMSEA values of less than .06 indicate a good fit, and values as

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

532 Educational and Psychological Measurement

Table 3
Summary of Fit Indices From Confirmatory Factor Analyses
2
Model χ df CFI NFI NNFI IFI GFI RMSEA

Unmodified hypothesized
two-factor model 220.62* 26 .87 .85 .81 .87 .89 .14
Final hypothesized
two-factor model 75.12* 23 .96 .95 .94 .96 .96 .07
Unmodified competing
one-factor model 348.53* 27 .78 .76 .70 .78 .82 .18
Final competing
one-factor model 126.70* 24 .92 .91 .89 .92 .92 .11

Note: CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = Bentler-Bonett normed fit index; NNFI = Bentler-Bonett
nonnormed fit index (also known as Tucker-Lewis Index); IFI = incremental fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit
index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
*p < .01.

high as .08 indicate a reasonable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; MacCallum, Brown, &
Sugawara, 1996).
Fit indices for the unmodified and modified models are presented in Table 3. The
results indicated that the modified two-factor model represented a good fit to the data,
with all fit indices indicating a good fit except for RMSEA, which indicated a reason-
able fit. In contrast, we compared the modified hypothesized two-factor model with a
modified competing one-factor model. The results indicated that although some of the
fit indices for the modified competing model were acceptable (i.e., greater than .90 for
CFI, NFI, IFI, and GFI), the indices for the modified hypothesized model were univer-
sally superior (see Table 3). Taken together, the results of confirmatory factor analyses
provided further preliminary support for the factor structure of the AESI scores
established in Study 1.

Study 3: Test-Retest Reliability and

Further Estimates of Reliability and Validity

Method

Purpose
The purpose of Study 3 was to examine the stability of AESI’s scores over time and
to provide additional estimates of internal consistency, convergent validity, and
discriminant validity of the scores associated with the AESI factors.

Participants
Participants were 144 students (72 males and 72 females) from a secondary school
in Singapore. The sample consisted of students from Grades 7 through 10, and partici-

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

 Ang, Huan / Academic Expectations Stress Inventory 533

pants’ ages ranged from 12 to 19 years (M = 14.02, SD = 1.47). Self-reported ethnic

identification for the sample was as follows: Of the participants, 87.5% were Chinese,
6.3% were Indian, 4.9% were Malay, and 1.4% endorsed Other (all other ethnic
groups not listed).

Measures

AESI. The same nine-item AESI with its two subscales (Expectations of Parents/
Teachers and Expectations of Self) used in Study 2 was administered in Study 3.

Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS). The RCMAS (Reynolds &
Richmond, 1985) is a 37-item self-report instrument for assessing the level and nature
of anxiety in children and adolescents. The RCMAS provided five scores. The total
anxiety score is based on 28 items, which are divided into three anxiety subscales: Physio-
logical Anxiety (10 items), Worry/Oversensitivity (11 items), and Social Concerns/
Concentration (7 items). The remaining 9 items constituted the Lie subscale.
Responses to each of these items on the RCMAS were made using a yes-no format. A
high score indicated a high level of anxiety or lie on that subscale. In this sample, the
Cronbach’s alphas for the Total Anxiety score, Physiological Anxiety score, Worry/
Oversensitivity score, and Social Concerns/Concentration score were .84, .63, .76,
and .64, respectively. There are ample research studies documenting the validity of
RCMAS scores (e.g., Reynolds, 1982; Stark & Laurent, 2001).

Behavior Assessment System for Children–Self Report of Personality (BASC-SRP).

The BASC adolescent self-report form (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992) was used, and
only the following two subscales were administered: Sensation Seeking (14 items),
and Self-Reliance (7 items). Scores from the Sensation Seeking subscale (e.g., “I like
it when my friends dare me to do something”) measures the tendency to take risks and
to seek excitement. A high score indicates a preference for risk taking and experimen-
tation. Scores from the Self-Reliance subscale (e.g., “I am someone you can rely on”)
measures confidence in one’s ability to solve problems and a belief in one’s personal
dependability and decisiveness. A high score represents positive personal adjustment
in terms of being willing to take responsibility, to make decisions, and to face life’s
challenges. Responses to each of these items on the BASC self-report subscales were
made using a true-false format. The reliability estimates for the scores of these two
subscales in the study were Sensation Seeking (.68) and Self-Reliance (.67). The BASC-
SRP has been correlated with several established instruments providing documenta-
tion of the validity of BASC-SRP’s scores (e.g., Doyle, Ostrander, Skare, Crosby, &
August, 1997; Sandoval & Echandia, 1994).

Consent and Procedure

The procedures used for obtaining consent, participation, and questionnaire
administration were similar to those of Study 1 except that this sample of 144 partici-

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

534 Educational and Psychological Measurement

Table 4
Correlations Between Scores From AESI, RCMAS, and BASC’s Sensation
Seeking and Self-Reliance Scales
Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. AESI .—
2. AESI F1 .91 .—
3. AESI F2 .85 .54 .—
4. RCMAS .36 .31 .32 .—
5. RCMAS-PH .27 .22 .27 .80 .—
6. RCMAS-WO .32 .27 .29 .90 .59 .—
7. RCMAS-CO .27 .27 .19 .73 .36 .53 .—
8. BASC-SS –.07 –.08 –.04 .20 .24 .13 .14 .—
9. BASC-SR .07 .05 .08 –.16 –.14 –.09 –.18 .09 .—

Note: AESI = Academic Expectations Stress Inventory; AESI F1 = Factor 1—Expectations of Parents/
Teachers; AESI F2 = Factor 2—Expectations of Self; RCMAS = Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale;
RCMAS-PH = RCMAS Physiological Anxiety subscale; RCMAS-WO = RCMAS Worry/Oversensitivity
subscale; RCMAS-CO = RCMAS Social Concerns/Concentration subscale; BASC-SS = Behavior Assess-
ment System for Children Sensation Seeking subscale; BASC-SR = Behavior Assessment System for Chil-
dren Self-Reliance subscale.

pating students completed all the measures at Time 1 and completed only the AESI
again 2 weeks later (Time 2).

Results

Test-Retest Reliability and Internal Consistency

The 2-week test-retest reliability coefficients for the scores on the nine-item AESI
and the scores on Expectations of Parents/Teachers and Expectations of Self subscales
were .85, .79, and .77, respectively. The coefficient alphas for the nine-item AESI, the
Expectations of Parents/Teachers subscale, and the Expectations of Self subscale were
as follows at Time 1: .83, .77, and .74, respectively. At Time 2, the coefficient alphas
were .90, .86, and .84, respectively. Taken together, these reliability estimates appear
adequate for research purposes (Henson, 2001; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

We calculated correlations between the AESI scores and RCMAS scores (Reynolds
& Richmond, 1985) to examine further evidence of AESI’s convergent validity. We
expected academic stress to be moderately correlated with anxiety. As hypothesized,
the results yielded positive correlations between AESI total and subscale scores and
RCMAS total and subscale scores (see Table 4). Correlations ranged from .19 to .36,
which represent medium effect sizes according to Cohen’s (1988) definition. Results
indicated that participants who perceived greater academic stress from expectations of

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

 Ang, Huan / Academic Expectations Stress Inventory 535

self and others also experienced greater overall anxiety, physiological anxiety, worry/
oversensitivity, and anxiety over social concerns.
We calculated correlations between the AESI scores and two of BASC-SRP’s
(Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992) subscale scores (Sensation Seeking and Self-Reliance)
to examine the evidence of AESI’s discriminant validity. We expected academic stress
to be uncorrelated with sensation seeking and self-reliance. As hypothesized, the
results yielded a lack of meaningful correlation between the scores on all the AESI
scales and both BASC-SRP’s subscales (see Table 4). Correlations ranged from –.08
to .08, which represent negligible effect sizes, indicating that scores from AESI and
Sensation Seeking as well as scores from AESI and Self-Reliance are measuring dis-
tinct constructs.

Summary and General Discussion

The objective of this investigation was to construct and validate scores in a self-
report inventory to measure expectations as a source of academic stress in middle and
high school Asian students. The study used both theory and statistics to identify items
leading to the establishment of the nine-item AESI, consisting of the five-item Expec-
tations of Parents/Teachers and the four-item Expectations of Self subscales. Results
across three studies suggest that AESI and its subscales provide reliable scores mea-
suring academic stress arising from expectations of parents/teachers and expectations
of self in middle and high school Asian adolescents. The obtained scores from the total
scale and both factors were found to be internally consistent across the studies with
Cronbach’s alphas ranging between .74 and .90. The 2-week test-retest reliability esti-
mates for the total scale and subscale scores were satisfactory and ranged from .77 to .85.
The emergence of the two factors is consistent with the literature on expectations as
a source of academic stress as experienced by Asians and Asian Americans. For exam-
ple, in their recent study, Gloria and Ho (2003) noted that Asian Americans perceived
family involvement and support as pressure to perform and to excel academically. Yeh
and Huang (1996) argued that academic pressure due to expectations of parents, and to
a lesser extent teachers, is particularly salient in Asian collectivistic cultures because
not meeting these expectations would likely lead to feelings of shame, which often
include exclusion or withdrawal of support. This type of exclusion is exceeding pain-
ful to the individual whose sense of self rests primarily on interdependence and group
memberships (Triandis, 1989). Obtaining a good education and subsequently a good
job provide the fuel for upward social mobility, and Asian children have been social-
ized to value hard work and diligence (D. Y. F. Ho, 1981). Sue and Okazaki (1990)
argued that if Asian Americans perform well in education and consequently assume
professional positions, they would then be more motivated to continue this pattern of
mobility. Based on research, it is clear that Asian students find the need to excel aca-
demically a source of intense pressure and stress (K. C. Ho & Yip, 2003; Isralowitz &
Ong, 1990; Juon et al., 1994; Lee & Larson, 2000). Hence, the two factors underlying

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

536 Educational and Psychological Measurement

the AESI appear to accurately reflect Asian and Asian American students’ experiences
of expectations as a source of academic stress.
In studying AESI’s scores for convergent and discriminant validity, we examined
some of the hypothesized relationships between AESI and other measures. The posi-
tive correlations between the AESI scores and the FNE-Brief (Leary, 1983a), CDI-
Short (Kovacs, 1992), and RCMAS (Reynolds & Richmond, 1985) scores provide ini-
tial evidence of AESI’s convergent validity. The null relationship between the AESI
and the Sensation Seeking and Self-Reliance subscales of the BASC-SRP (Reynolds
& Kamphaus, 1992) scores provide initial evidence of AESI’s discriminant validity.
This study has a few limitations. Because the AESI was deliberately restricted in its
focus, it was not comprehensive in its coverage of academic stressors in the school
environment. For example, it does not measure academic stress arising from peer fac-
tors such as teasing or taunting. Given that peer relationships involve important devel-
opmental issues during adolescence, this is a potentially important delimitation. Also,
if researchers were interested in developing a more comprehensive measure of aca-
demic stress in Asian populations, it would be necessary to begin with a much broader
item bank than was used in this study. Another limitation is the restricted age range of
the participants. All participants in the studies were middle and high school Asian stu-
dents. Future studies need to be conducted on other age groups of students, for exam-
ple, upper elementary students and college students, to further validate the obtained
scores from AESI.
Notwithstanding the need for additional research, it is hoped that the AESI will
become a useful tool for researchers, especially those interested in understanding the
role of expectations of parents/teachers and expectations of self as sources of aca-
demic stress among Asian student populations. For example, given the findings that
Asians in Asia have higher levels of anxiety and depression than individuals from non-
Asian countries (Sastry & Ross, 1998), and that Asian Americans have higher levels
of distress and depression compared to White Americans (Abe & Zane, 1990;
Okazaki, 1997), it would be interesting to examine the relationship between academic
expectations (of parents/teachers and of self) and anxiety and depression in children
and adolescents of Asian descent.

References
Abe, J. S., & Zane, N. W. S. (1990). Psychological maladjustment among Asian and White American col-
lege students: Controlling for confounds. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 437-444.
Abouserie, R. (1994). Sources and levels of stress in relation to locus of control and self-esteem in university
students. Educational Psychology, 14, 323-330.
Akgun, S., & Ciarrochi, J. (2003). Learned resourcefulness moderates the relationship between academic
stress and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 23, 287-294.
Barreto, S., & McManus, M. (1997). Casting the net for “depression” among ethnic minority children from
the high-risk urban communities. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 823-845.
Bentler, P. M. (2004). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance
structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

 Ang, Huan / Academic Expectations Stress Inventory 537

Burnett, P. C., & Fanshawe, J. P. (1997). Measuring school-related stressors in adolescents. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 26, 415-428.
Byrne, B. M. (1991). The Maslach Inventory: Validating factorial structure and invariance across intermedi-
ate, secondary, and university educators. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 583-605.
Byrne, B. M. (1993). The Maslach Inventory: Testing for factorial validity and invariance across elementary,
intermediate, and secondary teachers. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 66,
197-212.
Byrne, B. M. (1994). Testing for the factorial validity, replication, and invariance of a measuring instrument:
A paradigmatic application based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
29, 289-311.
Chung, B., Kim, H., Lee, S., Kwon, K., & Lee, J. (1993). Restoring Korean education from the bandage of
entrance examination education. Seoul, South Korea: Nanam Publication.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Dickey, D. (1996). Testing the fit of our models of psychological dynamics using confirmatory methods: An
introductory primer. In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in social science methodology (Vol. 4, pp. 219-
227). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Smith, H., & Shao, L. (1995). National differences in reported subjective well-being:
Why do they occur? Social Indicators Research, 34, 7-32.
Doyle, A., Ostrander, R., Skare, S., Crosby, R. D., & August, G. J. (1997). Convergent and criterion-related
validity of the Behavior Assessment System for Children Parent Rating Scale. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 26, 276-284.
Durm, M. W., & Glaze, P. E. (2001). Construct validity for self-acceptance and fear of negative evaluation.
Psychological Reports, 89, 386.
Fanshawe, J. P., & Burnett, P. C. (1991). Assessing school-related stressors and coping mechanisms in ado-
lescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 92-98.
Gloria, A. M., & Ho, T. A. (2003). Environmental, social, and psychological experiences of Asian-American
undergraduates: Examining issues of academic persistence. Journal of Counseling and Development,
81, 93-106.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heins, M., Fahey, S. N., & Leiden, L. I. (1984). Perceived stress in medical, law and graduate students. Jour-
nal of Medical Education, 59, 169-179.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on
coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177-189.
Henson, R. K., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2004). Reporting practice and use of exploratory factor
analysis in educational research journals. Research in the Schools, 11, 61-72.
Higgins, E. T., & King, G. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: Information processing consequences
of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition and
social interaction (pp. 69-121). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 867-884.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1981). Traditional patterns of socialization in Chinese society. Acta Psychologica Taiwanica,
23, 81-95.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1994). Cognitive socialization in Confucian heritage cultures. In P. M. Greenfield & R. R.
Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots in minority child development (pp. 39-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1996). Filial piety and its psychological consequences. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Handbook of Chi-
nese psychology (pp. 155-165). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Ho, K. C., & Yip, J. (2003). YOUTH.sg: The state of youth in Singapore. Singapore: National Youth Council.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling:
Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). London: Sage.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

538 Educational and Psychological Measurement

Isralowitz, R. E., & Ong, T. H. (1990). Singapore youth: The impact of social status on perceptions of adoles-
cent problems. Adolescence, 25, 357-362.
Juon, H., Nam, J. J., & Ensminger, M. E. (1994). Epidemiology of suicidal behavior among Korean adoles-
cents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 663-677.
Kohn, J. P., & Frazer, G. H. (1986). An academic stress scale: Identification and rated importance of aca-
demic stressors. Psychological Reports, 59, 415-426.
Kovacs, M. (1992). Children’s Depression Inventory. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
Leary, M. R. (1983a). A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 9, 371-375.
Leary, M. R. (1983b). Social anxiousness: The construct and its measurement. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 47, 66-75.
Lee, M., & Larson, R. (2000). The Korean “examination hell”: Long hours of studying, distress, and depres-
sion. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 249-272.
MacCallum, R. C., Brown, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample
size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.
Michie, F., Glachan, M., & Bray, D. (2001). An evaluation of factors influencing the academic self-concept,
self-esteem and academic stress for direct and re-entry students in higher education. Educational Psy-
chology, 21, 455-472.
Mordkowitz, E. R., & Ginsburg, H. P. (1987). Early academic socialization of successful Asian American
college students. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 9, 85-91.
Newcomb, M. D., Huba, G. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1986). Determinants of sexual and dating behaviors among
adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 428-438.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Okazaki, S. (1997). Sources of ethnic differences between Asian American and White American college
students on measures of depression and social anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 52-60.
Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implications of recent developments in structural equation mod-
eling for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 27, 485-527.
Reynolds, C. R. (1982). Convergent and divergent validity of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety
Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 1205-1212.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1992). Behavior Assessment System for Children manual. Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
Reynolds, C. R., & Richmond, B. O. (1985). Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale. Los Angeles: West-
ern Psychological Services.
Sandoval, J., & Echandia, A. (1994). Behavior Assessment System for Children. Journal of School Psychol-
ogy, 32, 419-425.
Sastry, J., & Ross, C. E. (1998). Asian ethnicity and the sense of personal control. Social Psychology Quar-
terly, 61, 101-120.
Schafer, W. (1996). Passing the test of college stress. In W. Schafer (Ed.), Stress management for wellness
(pp. 543-563). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
Shek, D. T. L. (1995). Adolescent mental health in different Chinese societies. International Journal of Ado-
lescent Medicine and Health, 8, 117-155.
Shek, D. T. L., & Chan, L. K. (1999). Hong Kong Chinese parents’ perceptions of the ideal child. Journal of
Psychology, 133, 291-303.
Stark, K. D., & Laurent, J. (2001). Joint factor analysis of the Children’s Depression Inventory and the
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 552-567.
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An
ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47, 723-729.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Struthers, C. W., Perry, R. P., & Menec, V. H. (2000). An examination of the relationships among academic
stress, coping motivation, and performance in college. Research in Higher Education, 41, 581-592.
Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an
explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913-920.

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015

 Ang, Huan / Academic Expectations Stress Inventory 539

Tanaka, J. S., & Huba, G. J. (1984). Confirmatory hierarchical factor analyses of psychological distress mea-
sures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 621-635.
Thompson, B. (1997). The importance of structure coefficients in structural equation modeling confirma-
tory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 5-19.
Thompson, B., & Borrello, G. M. (1985). The importance of structure coefficients in regression research.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 203-209.
Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A histor-
ical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 197-208.
Toupin, E. A. (1980). Counseling Asians: Psychotherapy in the context of racism and Asian-American his-
tory. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 50, 76-86.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96,
506-520.
Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clin-
ical Psychology, 33, 448-457.
Wenz-Gross, M., Untch, A. S., & Widaman, K. F. (1997). Stress, social support, and adjustment of adoles-
cents in middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 129-151.
Yang, K. S. (1981). The formation and change of Chinese personality: A cultural-ecological perspective.
Acta Psychologica Taiwanica, 23, 39-55.
Yeh, C. J., & Huang, K. (1996). The collectivistic nature of ethnic identity development among Asian-American
college students. Adolescence, 31, 645-662.
Zeidner, M. (1992). Sources of academic stress: The case of first year Jewish and Arab college students in
Israel. Higher Education, 24, 25-40.

Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at MCMASTER UNIV LIBRARY on March 19, 2015